We need trolls. They make us question ourselves as we bear their absurd, funny, stupid, critical, ignorant behavior and make us wonder am I being trolled. They keep things exciting in a way. On Dec 4, 2013 5:53 PM, "Mike Archbold" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's ironic that the "should we ban people" thread has spurred the > most discussion on any topic in a while on this list. Personally I > think people tend to shoot down other people's ideas much too readily, > there is too much chest-puffing that some method is THE answer to AGI. > This is a general comment not aimed at anyone specifically. > > The problem is that without working AGI, being overly critical about > somebody else's method that doesn't work yet is very wasteful. It > would be better to instead take an open minded attitude towards the > ideas of others, and borrow what you can from it, instead of taking an > ego-first approach, insult the person, and then claim your method is > superior --- again with no proof since there is no working strong AI. > > On 12/4/13, Samantha Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yeah. I wasn't happy to seem the same old stuff being posted by Mike as > > the last time I was here and in pretty much the same tones. I don't see > > much growth happening there. > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> I'm curious how many people think we should start a policy of banning > >> obvious trolls from this email list? > >> > >> I don't have an extremely strong opinion one way or the other. However, > >> I > >> note that the presence of so much trolling does cause me to avoid > looking > >> at the list most of the time, because my default assumption is that the > >> average post will not be interesting... > >> > >> The obvious inspiration for this question is Mike Tintner. While he has > >> a > >> certain sincerity to him, nevertheless, he is basically a troll on this > >> list in the Internet sense. He thinks everyone researching in the AGI > >> field is badly misguided and tells us so, repetitively, over and over. > >> And he really doesn't understand the basic concepts of computer science > >> -- > >> he thinks there are "non-algorithmic computer programs", or ways to > >> operate > >> computers non-algorithmically... which really is not true if you take > any > >> standard definition of "algorithm" ... > >> > >> Occasionally Tintner has spurred interesting discussions. But mostly he > >> just says the same boring, misunderstanding-based stuff over and over > >> again... > >> > >> Anyway, I can go either way on this personally, but I'm curious what > >> other > >> list members think. Should we ban Tintner and any other similar trolls > >> who > >> emerge, or let them use the list as their trolling-ground? > >> > >> Note: I absolutely would NOT want to start banning people for believing > >> AGI is impossible and saying so, or positing unpopular ideas, or saying > >> everyone in the field is misguided, etc. But being sooooo repetitive > >> with > >> the same exact points over and over again -- to the point where you're > >> the > >> most active poster on the list, yet you don't really understand the core > >> technical concepts underlying the field the list exists to discuss -- > >> this > >> verges from nonconformist thinking into trolling, IMO... > >> > >> Curious for others' thoughts.. ? > >> > >> -- Ben > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 10:29 AM, tintner michael > >> <[email protected] > >> > wrote: > >> > >>> Samantha: Michael, you think no algorithm can be creative? What do you > >>> think results in your own creativity, if any? If it is not a set of > >>> biologically encoded algorithms then what exactly is it? > >>> > >>> If you want to know, listen to: > >>> > >>> Samantha: Uh, a human baby has to do a lot of bumping up against the > >>> world, a lot of grasping, trying to move, trying to focus eyes, > learning > >>> to > >>> make sounds intelligible. > >>> > >>> It's nondeterministically programmed improvisation - > >>> nondeterministically programmed improvised goal-seeking. That's what > >>> every > >>> infant does when it flails aroundin the ways you mention, that's what > >>> you're doing right now as you compose your posts. That's what all forms > >>> of > >>> creativity entail and very visibly demonstrably entail. You think > >>> creatives > >>> searching for inspiration, sometimes for years, are following algos - > >>> step-by-step preplanned courses of action ? What's the algo for a > >>> creative > >>> block? What's the algo that drives AGI projectbuilders to say "5 years > >>> if > >>> we really really try" when he actually hasn't the slightest ideas? What > >>> do > >>> you think H SImon was talking about when he talked about nonprogrammed, > >>> unstructured thinking as distinct from the programmed kind? > >>> > >>> I have written a lot about this here, Samantha - you sound like you're > >>> coming in at the tail-end. > >>> > >>> There are no creative algoirthms/recipes - algos are just amplified > >>> human > >>> routines, low level stuff if extremely useful. And whenever an AGI-er > >>> starts to offer a concrete example of "creative algorithms" as PM has > >>> just > >>> done, they only end up offering excuses. Always. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 3 December 2013 01:19, Samantha Atkins <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Michael, you think no algorithm can be creative? What do you think > >>>> results in your own creativity, if any? If it is not a set of > >>>> biologically > >>>> encoded algorithms then what exactly is it? If it is a set of > >>>> algorithms, > >>>> however encoded, then why can't it be implemented on a different > >>>> substrate? > >>>> Perhaps your notion of "algorithm" is a bit too limited. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:28 AM, tintner michael < > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Oh please, PM. This is still dishonest. Ben tried this "read x.." > >>>>> ploy > >>>>> several times - never was anything there. > >>>>> > >>>>> Put up your example of algorithmic creativity for the enlightenment > of > >>>>> all here. You can't. Neither can anyone else. > >>>>> > >>>>> Don';t lecture about "reasoning ability" until you're capable of > >>>>> reasoning from empirical examples. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2 December 2013 19:13, Piaget Modeler > >>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> As a philosopher, I would think that you would like to read. > >>>>>> I hope you're not being lazy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Here's a starting point.... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://publications.csail.mit.edu/lcs/pubs/pdf/MIT-LCS-TR-563.pdf > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As I said, once you have context, I will be happy to discuss this > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> you. > >>>>>> Gain some context and let's discuss. This is the internet, it's not > >>>>>> that hard. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ~PM > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:23:29 +0000 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [agi] I guess I don't have AGI all figured out. > >>>>>> From: [email protected] > >>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> PM;We can't spoon feed each other endlessly. ..... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That is the most cowardly and dishonest statement. It is typical. I > >>>>>> am > >>>>>> sick of this kind of dishonesty. Put up or shut up. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2 December 2013 18:17, Piaget Modeler > >>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We can't spoon feed each other endlessly. Do a little research. > >>>>>> Read > >>>>>> the book. > >>>>>> Let's discuss when you've obtained Drescher's thesis (probably > >>>>>> online) > >>>>>> or read his book. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Always happy to discuss... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ~PM. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:06:54 +0000 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [agi] I guess I don't have AGI all figured out. > >>>>>> From: [email protected] > >>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> PM The Schema System synthesized new identifiers to represent novel > >>>>>> situations > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Synthesized what new from what? A proper specific example please.Not > >>>>>> a > >>>>>> sleight-of-hand handwave. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I guarantee you're talking nonsense. Prove me wrong. You should be > >>>>>> delighted to discuss - this is the most important thing in AGI - far > >>>>>> more > >>>>>> important than any of the narrow AI techniques you often discuss in > >>>>>> detail. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 2 December 2013 17:59, Piaget Modeler > >>>>>> <[email protected]>wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Gary Drescher's thesis qua book "Made Up Minds". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The Schema System synthesized new identifiers to represent novel > >>>>>> situations. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> True Creativity. True Construction. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Mike Tintner, this is the meme that you need to surpress: "*a > >>>>>> creative algorithm is a physical impossibility*". > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It is interfering with your reasoning ability, and creating a blind > >>>>>> spot for you. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ~PM > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ------------------------------ > >>>>>> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:41:44 +0000 > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [agi] I guess I don't have AGI all figured out. > >>>>>> From: [email protected] > >>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "Theoretically, contrary to Tintner's argument, it would be feasible > >>>>>> to use CBR to discover and represent truly novel situations. > However, > >>>>>> this > >>>>>> theoretical argument is not easy" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> One example of this creativity. From anywhere or anyone.. Actual or > >>>>>> theoretical. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I repeat : a creative algorithm is a physical impossibility like > >>>>>> perpetual motion, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation of > >>>>>> wine > >>>>>> into the blood of Christ and other such religious fictions of > >>>>>> creativity. > >>>>>> And a bleeding obvious impossibility if you could just once turn > your > >>>>>> attention from the "architecture" of algorithms to the finished > >>>>>> buildings > >>>>>> they produce.. Then you'd see algorithms can't produce new building > >>>>>> blocks.Only the same old Lego buildings. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If no one can give even a theoretical example - not the slightest > >>>>>> proof of concept - you are engaging in a Giant Wank. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *AGI* | Archives < > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > >>>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > >>>>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > >>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *AGI* | Archives < > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > >>>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc> > | > >>>>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > >>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> > >>>>>> *AGI* | Archives < > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > >>>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > >>>>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > >>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *AGI* | Archives < > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > >>>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19999924-4a978ccc> > | > >>>>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > >>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> > >>>>>> *AGI* | Archives < > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > >>>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > >>>>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > >>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > > > >>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/2997756-fc0b9b09> | > >>>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > >>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | > >>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription > >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> > >>>> > >>> > >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-deec6279> | > >>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > >>> <http://www.listbox.com> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ben Goertzel, PhD > >> http://goertzel.org > >> > >> "In an insane world, the sane man must appear to be insane". -- Capt. > >> James T. Kirk > >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/2997756-fc0b9b09> | > >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > >> <http://www.listbox.com> > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > AGI > > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > > RSS Feed: > https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/11943661-d9279dae > > Modify Your Subscription: > > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21697210-140bcd02 > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
